latest user's comments

heres where you are wrong >>>"naturally". according to biology,mammals, especially apes benefit greatly from a monogamous pairing. our brains need a longer time to develop (example, a deer can walk right out of the womb, whereas a human baby cant do anything basically)..being that a mammal takes longer to develop, a longer time for parental care is needed...human beings benefited from monogomy by having 2 caretakers watching/collecting food/ etc at the same or different times. so yea NATURALLY humans are monogomous, but can be polygomous depending on culture. source : Human evolutionary biology course.

"NATURALLY humans are monogamous" - No, that's just false. Each person is different as an individual, so there will be those who are truly monogamous, but that doesn't mean that humans are therefore naturally monogamous. There are many humans that are religious - does that mean humans are naturally religious? Like religion, monogamy is a practice that humans have developed.

You're basically saying that 'because X is beneficial for humans, X is the natural course for humans'. However, exercise is beneficial, yet there is an abundance of unhealthy people.

Or are you saying that 'because humans practise X, X is beneficial to humans'? I think there are a million examples of stupid, dangerous things people do that don't benefit them (or that even do harm).

"[H]uman beings benefited from monogomy by having 2 caretakers watching/collecting food/ etc at the same or different times" - it would be more beneficial to have more guardians for the children, meaning that polygamy would be more beneficial in this situation. The parents of a particular child would also be unknown, meaning that there would be fewer cases of infanticide since the parents wouldn't want to accidentally kill their own young.

that is incorrect. some animals have been documented (hell google monogomous animals, its not a myth) as being monogomous especially ape species. This was litterally key to our cognitive development. that religious analogy made shit sense, monogomy is actually widely accepted as being one of the reasons why we as a species were able to achieve higher cognitive abilities (as were alot of apes).

Dude...that is because we live in a very very very different time...when we first evolved we ran/walked and went days without food, we have had a slow adaptation rate therefore the abundunce of food today overwhelmed lards and thats why there is unhealthy food. monogomy was definately beneficial to humans thus came naturally.

no it would not have, careing for a child is an investment of resources...for a person to just care for a child would not be enough gain from an altruistic perspective. the reason that a single male and female cared for a child was because that is how we evolved, there are other ape species who engaged in other methods (single malde dominant society for example)..HOWEVER, for the fact that we are the least seually dimorphic ape species gives evidence of les sexual competition among males (for example, chimpanzees have larger ball sacks because they would have more sex and needed more sperm to try to get females pregnats)...again, we are the LEAST sexually dimporphic. That would be true in different species, however that is not how our species evolved...we specifically evolved alongside monogomy.

"[S]ome animals have been documented... as being monogomous especially ape species" - but we're talking about humans specifically. If humans are monogamous tell me this - why is it common these days to have single parents, for partners to cheat (hell, this content's about a website specifically for that!), and for people to have had multiple partners throughout their lifetime?

"[T]his was literally key to our cognitive development." - But modern humans have been around since times where polygamy was common. Your argument doesn't add up; how could modern humans exist before monogamy was universally practised if monogamy was the key to the modern human brain?

"...gives evidence of less sexual competition amongst males" - that could also mean that they had polygamous relationships where the father of the children was unknown. That isn't proof of monogamy at all, just that there was less sexual competition (it's applicable with both monogamy and polygamy).

The reason why i brought up other species that are monogomous is because im making a point that it is natural and not man made. like i said before, today is a tottatly different time, im almost hitting my head that you dont giet this concept...the website, ashley madison is part of an invention (internent) that was not available until recently and only partially within the lifetime of its average user...sites like these make cheating easier among things that will make people more ikely to cheat. This is all part of the new world, im explaining monogomy as it pertained through our evolutionary pathway.

because it was a precuroser to the brain...do you know how evolution works?

that would be conflicting to the idea that we are a male dominated society and have been...there are actual polygomous soceities in todays world (minority of poplulation) and even they dont hold up to what you are saying.

of the courses relating to this shitty argument, i have taken Human evo bio, anthropology, and a shitton of psychology and statistics courses (having talked about why people cheat in psych, monogomy in evolution, and enough statistics so that i think logically instead of assuming illogical ideas based on what i have learned). You are litterally wrong and im not even taking a strong stance on this because there is evidence that proves you are wrong and i have a long ass time in college learning about it.

(Your last paragraph appeals somewhat to authority - that's a logical fallacy, which is funny since you mentioned that you think logically.)

Man-made things are natural. What else - supernatural? Different people like different types of relationships, and since monogamy is the default relationship in the modern western world, people are more likely to take part in them.

"[S]ites like these make cheating easier among things that will make people more likely to cheat." - What does this prove? If I claim that people are naturally polygamous, and this site makes it easier to cheat, then that can be construed to be in my argument's favour, since people have access to a means to fulfill their natural tendencies.

"This is all part of the new world" - no it isn't; polygamy isn't this new thing that's only just popped up - it's been around since ancient times. There are a lot of links I could send but they say pretty much the same thing, so have this one: www.ilaam.net/brochures/brochure-13.html

"because it was a precuroser to the brain...do you know how evolution works?" - I think you misread what I wrote. You claim that:
- Monogamy made humans cognitively superior (as humans are today)
- Therefore, modern humans must only exist after monogamy became mainstream

However, modern humans existed before monogamy was mainstream, meaning that your position doesn't make sense.

"[T]here are actual polygomous soceities in todays world" - we're making progress - here we can at the very least say that humans can be either polygamous or monogamous, but neither are intrinsic to the human condition.

Finally, just because you're taking a class that has to do with human biology doesn't mean that you know everything about it. This arrogance is blatant and does you no favours (I already mentioned how fallacious this last paragraph is).

"logical fallacy" are you a philo major pleb? likewise, somewhat..is it or not. because im sure as hell its not, im establishing crediblity and common ground, which is obivously lacking in this conversation.

you argued that it was man made, but if its also natural you contradcit yourself. That is a luxury that is established by the modern world, im talking about monogomy evloving alongside humans when they were still flinging shit at eachother so to speak.

no shit...again, by new world i mean culture...since in my original i said culturally people can be polygomous...however originally we evolved due to our monogomous relationships (shit flinging times). "neither are intrinsic" why contradict yourself further? your argument is not even an argument anymore, its just trying to take down both sides ala sinking the ship to kill the captain.

no shit...im establishing credibility to show that i atleast have common knowledge as it pertains to this issue...and everything points to humans being naturally monogamous. This is not my area of expertise, but i still studied it.

"[P]hilo major pleb" - I am indeed (or was). Philosophy teaches one how to make logical arguments, and philosophy student or not, using logical fallacies is a bit retarded, and so you'd be best avoiding them. If everyone learnt philosophy (or at the very least formal logic) there would be a lot less idiocy in the world (and if you're okay with making logical fallacies then you're twice the pleb I could possibly even try be).

"[Y]ou argued that it was man made, but if its also natural you contradcit yourself." - No I didn't. Anything man-made is natural - the houses humans build, the aeroplanes, the nuclear power plants - are you suggesting they're all supernatural or something? You can't wriggle out of it by simply stating that your opponent has contradicted themselves when really you just don't know how to properly rebut the argument.

"[I]'m talking about monogomy evloving alongside humans when they were still flinging shit at eachother..." - any evidence to back it up? Scientists usually argue that it is very difficult to know if early humans were monogamous or polygamous. I'm saying that modern humans are polygamous, and there's an abundance of proof for that.

"why contradict yourself further?" - Again, I'm not contradicting at all (seriously, you can't just keep saying that to try and win an argument - it fails miserably and makes you seem either lazy or dim). I merely stated that "we can at the very least say that humans can be either polygamous or monogamous, but neither are intrinsic to the human condition. " - Note, "we can at the very least" - that is not to say that we do say that, just that we can, or could if we were to meet half-way. And though humans are naturally polygamous, it isn't a contradiction for me to say that humans can be either polygamous or monogamous - for example, humans naturally seek sex, yet some humans are celibate. Stop saying that things are contradictions when they're not.

"[J]ust trying to take down both sides ala sinking the ship to kill the captain. " - No, I'm trying to take both views into consideration. This is what philosophy is all about; rather than just being stubborn and ignoring every other argument that goes against your own beliefs, one should consider the opposition and then logically rebut the argument - your rebuts are neither logical nor well-constructed, but I'm assuming that's probably because you're not accustomed to placing together well-made arguments in your human biology class.

"[I]'m establishing credibility" - you're merely a student; your knowledge is severely limited on the subject compared to experts. When it comes to logical arguments you're fine as long as you can avoid being fallacious, yet you struggle with that a bit.

" [E]verything points to humans being naturally monogamous" - quite the assertion, especially since this content is all about cheating. Stop ignoring the facts that humans have multiple partners throughout their lifetimes, that they cheat, and that many cultures throughout history have been polygamous.

Exactly this is probably what also cases these issues and debates all the time. Its the fact people seem not to understand the concept of communicating and being honest. And explaining what they want/need/etc. Because if all humans were honest and never kept secrets. We'd probably just have alot of better relationships. Less hurt and all that but human nature tends to be hard to fight and improve so people keep to not communicating and being secretive about personal things.

But then we tread into the grounds of relationship communication and being informative to possible partners. Theres people who well know they arent in the end for monogamy and then they dont communicate that and they feel trapped and locked in. And think their partner is not gonna let them. There are even people who do scumbaggy stuff and do stuff behind a partners back. But alas my point is you should really communicate the fact of being poly to any future partner and really explain yourself so they can make a choice.

I agree. I also think it would be beneficial for a partner to say that they're only interested in a monogamous relationship if it means so much to them. Both of them would do well to get everything straight early on. I think it's selfish for partner A to deny partner B to form other relationships, but it would also be selfish of partner B to be secretive about it all and go behind the back of partner A. No matter the relationship preference, honesty is key.

Exactly this is probably what also cases these issues and debates all the time. Its the fact people seem not to understand the concept of communicating and being honest. And explaining what they want/need/etc. Because if all humans were honest and never kept secrets. We'd probably just have alot of better relationships. Less hurt and all that but human nature tends to be hard to fight and improve so people keep to not communicating and being secretive about personal things.

Except we as a species don't need to have multiple partners anymore. Sure its fine if you want to be polygamous but why a majority of people are monogamous probably stands in that we dont need many partners to carry offspring anymore. We know nowadays we can safely have offspring with a single partner and that carrying on for generations. And that the male can focus on protecting the single female alot better. Basically theres benefits if we are talking about down to the base idea of our species being largely monogamous. Because we have evolved largely from the whole idea of producing as much offspring as we can. Instead we try to focus on just one partner and improving the quality of that relationship. But again everyones free to be what they want. For their own reasons i just dont like polygamy and i never will. Im happy having a single partner whom i choose to spend my life with and to focus all my care and attention on. But we all have our reasons for why we want monogamy or polygamy.

I'm not arguing about what humans as a species need - just what they want. There are benefits to both monogamy and polygamy, but I'm trying to state that it's all about a person's preference, and those who would be more comfortable in a polygamous relationship instead find themselves following societal norms and forming monogamous relationships. This causes problems, not only for them, but for the monogamous partner they've found themselves with.

But then we tread into the grounds of relationship communication and being informative to possible partners. Theres people who well know they arent in the end for monogamy and then they dont communicate that and they feel trapped and locked in. And think their partner is not gonna let them. There are even people who do scumbaggy stuff and do stuff behind a partners back. But alas my point is you should really communicate the fact of being poly to any future partner and really explain yourself so they can make a choice.

I agree. I also think it would be beneficial for a partner to say that they're only interested in a monogamous relationship if it means so much to them. Both of them would do well to get everything straight early on. I think it's selfish for partner A to deny partner B to form other relationships, but it would also be selfish of partner B to be secretive about it all and go behind the back of partner A. No matter the relationship preference, honesty is key.

Exactly this is probably what also cases these issues and debates all the time. Its the fact people seem not to understand the concept of communicating and being honest. And explaining what they want/need/etc. Because if all humans were honest and never kept secrets. We'd probably just have alot of better relationships. Less hurt and all that but human nature tends to be hard to fight and improve so people keep to not communicating and being secretive about personal things.

it affects people emotionally
ffs man, it's not all about physical pain
humans fall in love deeply, and they love that person and that person only
we don't want them fucking around and potentially falling for that other person and leaving us
along with stds and other bullshit. yeah. maybe it's ok for you, but most normal humans love one person and want them to themselves.

So if someone would get emotionally upset in response to your action, you would suggest not to perform that action? I thought FunnyJunk was anti-SJW, but as soon as I bring up polygamy everyone turns their cloaks and claims that hurting feelings is bad.

Seriously, it's hypocritical as hell. Then again, you're just a single person - do you believe that:

- If doing X would upset someone, you shouldn't do X?

If so, you are consistent. If you don't agree with that statement, then you must explain why it makes a difference when it comes to relationships. If your partner said they'd be upset if you talked to other people, would you then never speak to anyone else again? Do try to be logically consistent.

you're a dumb motherfucker man
if you love someone, you don't do anything to hurt that person
hurt feelings is so fucking different from hurting someone emotionally
what if your mother told you she hated you? how would that feel to you?
as opposed to her telling you that you're fat and need to lose weight
BIG difference and you sound like a dumbass little kid

I'm making all of my arguments from a logical point of view, whereas you seem to be a slave to your emotions. You have a weak will, and so I'd say you sound like a "dumbass kid", to be honest. Anyway, let's adress your points:

"[I]f you love someone, you don't do anything to hurt that person" - but by restricting your partner and commanding them to have no other relationships, you could be hurting them. It's a two-way street and it sounds like you think your desires are more important than your partner's.

"[H]urt feelings is so fucking different from hurting someone emotionally" - No, that's the same thing.

"[W]hat if your mother told you she hated you? how would that feel to you?
as opposed to her telling you that you're fat and need to lose weight " - I would respect that she exercises her own autonomy. Why would I be so pathetic as to get hurt feelings just because someone else hated me? It's their opinion and they have the right to it. (Plus, It'd be more likely that she'd want me to put on weight - I'm as slim as I am patient, and your rebuttals require a fair share of patience.)

You need to become stronger-willed, and just like everyone else in this thread, you ignore my questions about consistency, so I'll ask it again:

- If your partner said they'd be upset if you talked to other people, would you then never speak to anyone else again?

- If you answer yes, then you're more of a servant to their needs than an equal
- If you answer no, then you're being logically inconsistent

The douche defending sleeping with multiple partners while in a relationship is calling me weak willed
hah

you can't pull that "oh not letting your partner sleep around is you hurting them" bullshit.
if YOU as a polygamist chooses that lifestyle, then that's your thing and you need to be 100% open about it before getting into a relationship.
otherwise, it IS you hurting your partner

anyway, I'm done with this because you sound like you have some kind of personality disorder.

In my wiev, sex is a really high level of affection and all I could wiev the other girl is as competition. When joining a monogamous relationship your technically make a promise that you will ONLY show that kind of affection to your partner. That's at least how I view it, but from what I've seen women are more territorial, I just feel like that if someone wants a polygamous relationship I shouldn't find that out by catching my SO with someone else.

- Sex can be a really high level of affection, but not for all people.
- If partner A loved partner B passionately but wanted a one-night-stand with someone else (out of lust, no more), then it wouldn't mean they loved partner B any less. Partner B may disapprove, but for the same selfish reasons a clingy partner may dislike their partner going on a night out with some other attractive friends. Who is partner B to deny great pleasure to the one they love?
- "When joining a monogamous relationship your technically make a promise that you will ONLY show that kind of affection to your partner" - I agree absolutely. If they consent to a monogamous relationship then they have a duty to it. However, my point is that agreeing to such a thing by default is not the right way to go for everyone.

How does that destroy my arguments? If humans were naturally monogamous then why do we see a trend in humans having multiple partners throughout their lives, with many cheating on their partners? Not a single person has answered this question today. Just because you don't like the idea of polygamy doesn't mean that it just goes away.